Search This Blog

Posts

Seeking to minimise litigations over taxation, CBDT has come out with rules for computing distributed income arising out of issue of shares following buy back, demerger, amalgamation or bonus issue by companies. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has introduced new Rule 44BB for computing amount received by a company in respect of issue of share for computing buy back tax payable.

The rules take effect from June 1, 2016.

The final rules provide for computation mechanism of 'amount received' in 12 different scenarios depending upon the manner of issue of shares — regular issue, amalgamation, demerger, bonus issue, conversion of bond or debenture, sweat equity share issue and share-buyback in demat form.

The clarification with respect to the amount received by a company in case of ESOP or sweat equity shares is quite logical and would go a long way in rationalising the tax impact arising on buy back of such shares, experts said.

For longer tenure products, they offer higher returns compared to other instruments. But for shorter tenures, things are getting tighter for investors Despite the recent interest rate cuts in small savings schemes; they still remain attractive for retail investors. For the October-December quarter, the government has reduced interest rates by 10 basis points across the schemes. The one-year fixed deposit now carries seven per cent interest rate. The returns on two, three, and five-year deposits are 7.1 per cent, 7.3 per cent and 7.8 per cent, respectively. The short-term rates, up to two years, are almost on a par with those of all big banks. But in deposits over five years, small savings scheme scores. SBI offers only seven per cent on fixed deposits above three years. Among private banks, ICICI Bank and HDFC have comparable rates compared to Small Savings Schemes for tenures less than five years. But for five years or more, these banks offer interest rates of 7.25 per cent. However, n…

With the government attempting to arrive at a final rate of the goods and services tax (GST) through consensus among stakeholders, the Gems & Jewellery Export Promotion Council (GJEPC) has demanded that the precious metals and stones industry be kept under the lowest rate slab. According to GJEPC Chairman Praveenshankar Pandya, any adverse tax structure would result in India losing its leadership position in diamond cutting and processing. Currently, import of rough diamond attracts ‘nil’ duty, while exports of cut and polished diamond are under ‘zero’ duty regime. “Thus, the entire gold and jewellery sector is currently under ‘nil’ duty regime. Any adverse duty levy on this sector would hit the entire value chain of diamond and jewellery sectors. Therefore we, based on a survey conducted over nine months across our 7,000 registered members, arrived at a conclusion that a recommendation should be sent to the government seeking exemption of gems and jewellery sector under GST,” said …

India Inc may prefer a higher rate at the top end of the goods and services tax (GST) bracket, rather than have a cess that is non-creditable by nature, with a cascading effect on the indirect tax system. "Industry is not going to welcome the idea of a cess. In fact, industry may prefer a higher tax rate so that the input tax credit chain is not broken, and the whole indirect system remains less complicated," said Harishanker Subramaniam, national leader, indirect tax, EY India. Tax experts say imposing a cess is a bad idea as it complicates the structure of GST. Pratik Jain, leader indirect tax, PwC India, agrees that cesses, if imposed, will lead to cascading of taxes and complicate the overall GST structure. "Increasing the rate of GST slightly might be a better solution," he adds. Tax experts and corporate lawyers say the government in all its communications on GST highlighted that all cesses and surcharges would be subsumed under the new indirect tax regime. This…

Industry and consumers would have to wait at least a fortnight to know the much-awaited goods and services tax (GST) rates, as the meeting of the Council to decide it ended abruptly on Wednesday, a day ahead of schedule. The Centre and the states failed to reach any consensus on it. Also, the issue of administrative control over tax assesses or dual control - claimed to have been settled earlier - cropped up again. It was decided the GST Council would meet again on November 3 and 4. The Centre and states, however, did manage to reach a broad agreement on the formula for compensation to loss-incurring states and a cess over the peak rate to fund the compensation. The details of these would be worked out at the next meeting, before tax rates can be fixed. The issue of tax rates, for which the Centre has suggested four slabs and a cess, would also be taken up in the November meeting. "On the issue of source of funds from which compensation to the states would be funded, the GST Council h…